A.J.Mechelynck

ipv6 still unsupported?

32 posts in this topic

11 hours ago, A.J.Mechelynck said:

Experiment shows that removing only the "X-Received: by 2002: (etc.)" line ("line" in email headers sense of course, i.e. including any indented continuation lines following it) is enough to make SpamCop parse the spam with no error. (Then I paste the removed line back, of course, into the first "user comments" box at the end of the parse page.)

 

Best regards,

Tony.

Are not getting (so far) any more spam from this "Alibaba" spammer. I also report to China's Cert. There are no working abuse contact for that IP 

Your message to ipas@cnnic.cn can not be delivered. The error was:
" Quota error.(Quota exceeded)".

Your original message is included as attachment.


https://www.spamcop.net/sc?id=z6440769324zb77944826b82dd3c90873e053b71b743z

Edited by petzl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/31/2018 at 7:56 PM, petzl said:

they are bogus headers, which need deleting for SpamCop to report. SpamCop can identify IPv6 

Just include them in notes

So, if these are bogus headers why is spamcop even trying to use them?  If I remember correctly Julian had something setup back around the turn of the century about ignoring "X-*" headers.  Why are we even trying to report these headers that are added by google, that placed onto the message after it has been accepted?  Technically, if spamcop continues to try to accept "X-*" headers, then we will need to just remove them from the spam before we report them as they are not added by the spammer's ISP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have successfully used the above "cut and paste-into-the-comments" method to get SpamCop to correctly handle three messages that had generated "nothing to report" on first submission to SpamCop. All three had X-Received with 2002: at the front of the address. I'm using Google's Inbox for gmail app, and this work-around only adds a few mouse clicks to my routine.

I also noted that messages with X-Received with 10. at the front are processed properly by SpamCop without applying this hack. 

So what's the big deal? Why would it be so hard for SpamCop to fix it?

Is SpamCop monitoring this forum?

What does it take to poke them into fixing a broken system?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Cowboy Bob said:

So what's the big deal? Why would it be so hard for SpamCop to fix it?

Actually, I think this is an easy fix if they are still using regex like they were years ago.  Adding something like a "\s" such as "/\sReceived:\s.../" would probably fix it.  "/\WReceived:\s.../" would not as the \W matches the hyphen "-".  Another possible fix is "/\bReceived:\s.../" as the \b should match the start.  If they were using a //gsm in perl, then the fix could be "/^Received:\s...../".

9 minutes ago, Cowboy Bob said:

Is SpamCop monitoring this forum?

I suspect not as I have not see the deputies in a few years on in the forum.

9 minutes ago, Cowboy Bob said:

What does it take to poke them into fixing a broken system?

You can probably reach someone at their deputy address: deputies[at]spamcop.net

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, gnarlymarley said:

So, if these are bogus headers why is spamcop even trying to use them?

SpamCop has been modified by different owners since Julian Haight left I think we have what we have, so now need get around the quirks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are modifications/updates in the works correcting errors and tweaking functions. For security reasons what is being worked on and what the schedule is are tightly help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Lking said:

There are modifications/updates in the works correcting errors and tweaking functions. For security reasons what is being worked on and what the schedule is are tightly help.

It may make sense to conceal some of the details of what's being worked on. But when the people doing that work remain anonymous and never communicate with the Spamcop users, it's hard to remain confident in the system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now